Oxford student stabs boyfriend - could be spared jail



You would bear some responsibility though wouldn't you.

I suspected lawyers really didn't care about the consequences of facilitating opportunities for people to re-offend whilst on bail, you've just confirmed it.
No, I wouldn't bear any responsibility. At all. I'm not the judge who makes the decisions. Want me to ask him if he bears any responsibility for not sending this individual to jail.

Anyone ever thought that there's a set of people out there who have a violent disposition and will continue to commit crime whether they're jailed or not?
 
Or a good few lung fulls of oxygen.
Played rugby for Medicals many years ago (as a ringer) and was quite surprised by the levels of drinking from what should have been a sensible group.

Doctors are apparently considered one of the high-risk car insurance demographics because of their propensity to drink a lot.
 
No, I wouldn't bear any responsibility. At all. I'm not the judge who makes the decisions. Want me to ask him if he bears any responsibility for not sending this individual to jail.

Anyone ever thought that there's a set of people out there who have a violent disposition and will continue to commit crime whether they're jailed or not?

Yeah I'd blame the Judge or Magistrates too. Far too often have I seen both ignore a completely sound application to remand a defendant on the basis that they're likely to re-offend if provided with an opportunity to do so. The defence who argue their case can't possibly believe they're client won't re-offend. In this instance, fair enough, you might think he wouldn't. How many times have you argued on behalf of someone who you know with near certainty given their offending history, is going to create more misery for victims if released on bail ? the point is, you can't discriminate and I was just wondering how that sits with you morally?
 
Yeah I'd blame the Judge or Magistrates too. Far too often have I seen both ignore a completely sound application to remand a defendant on the basis that they're likely to re-offend if provided with an opportunity to do so. The defence who argue their case can't possibly believe they're client won't re-offend. In this instance, fair enough, you might think he wouldn't. How many times have you argued on behalf of someone who you know with near certainty given their offending history, is going to create more misery for victims if released on bail ? the point is, you can't discriminate and I was just wondering how that sits with you morally?
My personal experience is that the judges usually get it right. If a person should be remanded, they usually are. If they should get the jail, they usually do.

I deal with hundreds of cases a year. If I started worrying about what each individual might do whilst at liberty, I'd end up in a psychiatric ward.
 
My personal experience is that the judges usually get it right. If a person should be remanded, they usually are. If they should get the jail, they usually do.

I deal with hundreds of cases a year. If I started worrying about what each individual might do whilst at liberty, I'd end up in a psychiatric ward.

I appreciate that. But it's pretty much my point. You don't care. Burglar is presented to the Court a month before Christmas. He's a crackhead and has plenty previous. You know that if you have a good day, he'll be out burgling and ruining people's Christmas's.
Cant say is sleep well at night doing that but hey, someone's gotta do it.
 
he's got form for defending splits that use lethal weapons before thinking better of it, defended an antifa activist using broken bottles a while ago after she'd bragged about going to take 'nazi scalps' - it's misguided just virtue signalling.


HOUSE!!!

and in less than 3 lines too
 
Sounds like a classy chick. Kicked and punched him then stabbed him. Probably a spoilt brat daddy's girl. If I were the judge I'd give her some stir in the hope she might learn from it. Doesn't matter who you are or what you've got, you're only ever one wrong step away from losing it all.
 
Lots of interesting stats around crime imo...


Half of criminals caught carrying a knife have been spared an immediate jail term for a repeat offence despite a new "two strikes and you're out" rule.

Adults caught with a blade for the second time are supposed to be jailed for at least six months under laws rolled out last year.

But provisional data indicates that only 50 per cent were jailed in the months after the rules came into force, while another 23 per cent were given suspended sentences.

The Ministry of Justice said it was "too early" to properly assess the impact of the new laws.

A statistical bulletin said that 966 individuals have so far been identified as having committed a repeat knife offence between July 17, 2015 - when the rules came into force - and the end of last year.
 
Judges comments

"It seems to me that if this was a one-off, a complete one-off, to prevent this extraordinary able young lady from not following her long-held desire to enter the profession she wishes to, would be a sentence which would be too severe"

Seems reasonable given he will have presided over the entire case and not just read an inflammatory right wing tabloid summary and got the pitchforks out.

Not saying that you, @UTW, have done that but invariably some will.
It also said that she had a history of drugs problems and a previous history of violence.... I dont think i would want her anywhere near me. She should be given a custodial sentence as other similar crimes would incur
 
It's easy to find other examples of 'non-elite' perps who didn't go to jail...

After a night of heavy drinking, a woman stabbed her boyfriend in the chest with a steak knife, Leicester Crown Court was told. Marcia Lewis, 35, admitted to unlawfully wounding her then partner after they returned home from a night of drinking. It was discovered that the victim suffered a collapsed lung after they were admitted to hospital.

Lewis received a suspended sentence for her actions, but the court was told that the motives and circumstances surrounding the assault were unclear because of the amount of drink that was involved.

Recorder Harbage told Lewis, of Western Road, Westcotes: "Since then you've been at a hostel in Reading. I'm told the reduction of your alcohol intake is verified by regular tests and your mental health issues are being addressed."
 
It also said that she had a history of drugs problems and a previous history of violence.... I dont think i would want her anywhere near me. She should be given a custodial sentence as other similar crimes would incur

If she has a history of those then she'd never pass fitness to practice anyways

It's easy to find other examples of 'non-elite' perps who didn't go to jail...

After a night of heavy drinking, a woman stabbed her boyfriend in the chest with a steak knife, Leicester Crown Court was told. Marcia Lewis, 35, admitted to unlawfully wounding her then partner after they returned home from a night of drinking. It was discovered that the victim suffered a collapsed lung after they were admitted to hospital.

Lewis received a suspended sentence for her actions, but the court was told that the motives and circumstances surrounding the assault were unclear because of the amount of drink that was involved.

Recorder Harbage told Lewis, of Western Road, Westcotes: "Since then you've been at a hostel in Reading. I'm told the reduction of your alcohol intake is verified by regular tests and your mental health issues are being addressed."

Did Marcia go to Trinity or King's?
 

Back
Top